Report
Total body photography for skin cancer screening Lynn T. Dengel1, MD, Gina R. Petroni2, PhD, Joshua Judge1, MD, David Chen3, MBA, Scott T. Acton3, PhD, Anneke T. Schroen1, MD, MPH, and Craig L. Slingluff1, Jr, MD
1
Department of Surgery, 2Department of Public Health Sciences, and 3Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health Systems, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Abstract Background Total body photography may aid in melanoma screening but is not widely applied due to time and cost. We hypothesized that a near-simultaneous automated skin photo-acquisition system would be acceptable to patients and could rapidly obtain total body images that enable visualization of pigmented skin lesions.
Correspondence Craig L. Slingluff Jr, MD Department of Surgery University of Virginia Health System PO Box 800709 Charlottesville VA 22908 USA E-mail: [email protected] Disclosures: LD, SA, and CS are partners in a limited liability corporation, Dermagram LLC, which was created for the purposes of attaining further funding through STTR grants from the NIH. These grants were not funded and Dermagram LLC currently holds no intellectual property with no outside investors or current revenue streams.
Methods From February to May 2009, a study of 20 volunteers was performed at the University of Virginia to test a prototype 16-camera imaging booth built by the research team and to guide development of special purpose software. For each participant, images were obtained before and after marking 10 lesions (five “easy” and five “difficult”), and images were evaluated to estimate visualization rates. Imaging logistical challenges were scored by the operator, and participant opinion was assessed by questionnaire. Results Average time for image capture was three minutes (range 2–5). All 55 “easy” lesions were visualized (sensitivity 100%, 90% CI 95–100%), and 54/55 “difficult” lesions were visualized (sensitivity 98%, 90% CI 92–100%). Operators and patients graded the imaging process favorably, with challenges identified regarding lighting and positioning. Conclusions Rapid-acquisition automated skin photography is feasible with a low-cost system, with excellent lesion visualization and participant acceptance. These data provide a basis for employing this method in clinical melanoma screening.
Introduction
1250
Early detection of melanoma is critical to maximizing a chance for cure. Most melanomas are visible on the skin; however, many lesions are in skin areas not visible to the patient,1 and the sensitivity and specificity of a skin exam is limited by the expertise and the memory of the practitioner and patient about changes over time,1–4 as well as by patient access to skin exams by their primary care physician or dermatologist. Primary care physicians generally consider digital rectal exam, manual breast exam, and Pap smear as more important uses of their time than skin exams.5 In addition, there is a shortage of dermatologists in the United States,6,7 and further contraction in the effective supply of dermatologists is projected.6,8 The estimated patient wait time for an appointment for a changing mole is more than a month.7 If a convenient, reliable, and affordable technology were available to aid in skin cancer screening, it is likely there would be International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
increased access and stronger recommendations for annual skin cancer screening. Various technologies can aid in skin cancer screening. Digital surface microscopy (dermoscopy) is useful for evaluation of individual skin lesions9 but requires formal training and specialized equipment and is very operatordependent.3,10 Photography as an adjunct to clinician screening exams can improve accuracy and early detection of skin cancer,1,3,11–17 and digital photography is used in some centers to document a baseline skin exam1,4,18,19 or for lesion surveillance with serial imaging.3,12, 20 Physicians and patients are interested in photography as an aid to melanoma screening;21 however, adaptation of this technology as a routine mechanism for population screening is limited by financial and logistical constraints.9 Most centers use a handheld camera and photographer (professional photographer, physician, or nurse) to acquire an average of 24 images (range 4–50).1,9,15,22,23 An automated photography system to streamline and to standardize this screening practice has ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
Dengel et al.
been evaluated in the private practice setting and found to be helpful in diagnosing thin melanoma.24 Patient satisfaction and feasibility of their imaging method were not reported. We developed a novel, near-simultaneous multicamera automated skin photo-acquisition system. We hypothesized that this system could rapidly capture complete skin photographs with patients in just two positions, would be acceptable to patients, and would enable visualization of pigmented skin lesions in a wide range of skin sites. Methods
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
Report
arrays of four cameras each, located in each corner of the square booth. To aid in background segmentation and to minimize specular reflection, the prototype system walls are draped in a blue fabric of relatively consistent color. The cameras are capable of simultaneous capture of 16 highresolution images of patient skin in a single pose; 24-bit color images of size 1704 9 2272 pixels are obtained from each camera. To capture near-complete skin imaging with this device, a complete dataset included images in two positions, one standing (position 1) and one kneeling on a stool (position 2). The cameras are connected via USB extenders into a standard personal computer (PC). The PC is equipped with
Skin cancer screening survey Before initiating the clinical trial, we initiated a study at our melanoma clinic investigating patient’s opinions and adherence to skin cancer screening (IRB HSR#13534). We got in touch with 70 patients from our melanoma clinic that had previously agreed to be contacted for this purpose and had an active email address. The survey gathered information on the patient’s skin cancer history, screening regimen, their opinion about various screening modalities, and time they would be willing to spend for screening. The original survey was distributed electronically in February 2008 with two subsequent email reminders in February and March 2008. The survey was completed anonymously. All responses were received by April 2008.
2 GB of memory and an Intel 2 Core Duo processor. A basic
Prototype development Our team initiated development of a prototype device (Dermagram, University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA, USA), which includes a framed booth measuring 6 ft 9 6 ft 9 6 ft, mounted with 16 digital cameras (Canon Powershot A520 4MP and Canon PowerShot A80 4MP, Melville, NY, USA). As shown schematically in Figure 1, the cameras are fixed in four vertical
Pilot clinical study From February to May 2009, a pilot study of 20 volunteers was performed using this prototype device. The study was designed to allow for optimization of the imaging system during the first cohort of patients. Nine participants were imaged during this development phase, and adjustments to patient positioning and the operating system were made. The final 11 participants were imaged under the definitive design plan for data analysis. Participants were instructed on the correct positioning for the imaging before entering the Dermagram booth. A primary imaging session was completed, imaging patients in positions 1 and 2. After initial imaging, a complete skin exam was performed by a physician, and 10 pigmented skin lesions were visualized, to be evaluated for visualization by the imaging system. These included five lesions in difficult locations (“difficult” lesions), defined as lesions in a skin fold, in hairbearing areas, along hair lines, in the umbilicus, behind the ears, between the fingers or toes, and under the chin. They also included five “easy” lesions, defined as lesions on the arms and legs, trunk, buttocks, and face, and not in areas defined as difficult. Skin markers were placed next to each of these lesions, and a second set of photographs was obtained in the manner above, to document the location of these lesions. The maximum diameter of each lesion was recorded. At the completion of the trial, images from all 11 participants were reviewed by a physician, and marked lesions were scored as
Figure 1 Diagram of prototype imaging system, Dermagram. Here, each green sphere represents a single camera focused on a different portion of patient skin ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
interface to obtain images and automated photo-acquisition have been developed in the C-sharp programming environment. The program currently uses Canon SDK version 7.3, which supports a number of Canon cameras, including the A520 and the A80. To allow for simultaneous shutter release, the program calls a process for each camera and uses TCP sockets to issue commands. Various parameters and modes of the camera can be controlled through the program interface. The program also allows the computer user to preview the subject using the viewfinders of the cameras to aid in calibration if necessary. After the shutter release is activated in the graphics user interface and the cameras take their images, they send them back to the computer where they are stored in a folder.
International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
1251
1252
Report
Dengel et al.
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
visualized or not visualized on the first set of patient images. Imaging logistical challenges were scored by the operator, and participant opinion was assessed by questionnaire.
Results Skin cancer screening survey
The response rate on the patient survey about skin cancer screening was 73% (51 of 70). A history of melanoma was reported by 50 responders (98%). Five responders (10%) had never had a complete skin exam, and only 13 responders (26%) had ever had photographs taken as part of a skin exam. However, 36 responders (70%) wished to have complete skin photography, and 41 responders (80%) were interested in having it performed via an automated photo booth. The majority (36 responders, 70%) of participants was willing to spend any amount of time needed to obtain complete skin photography, and the remaining participants would spend less than two minutes (2%), 10 minutes (4%), 20 minutes (10%), and 30 minutes (8%). Pilot clinical trial lesion detection
Eleven participants were imaged under the definitive design for data analysis: nine males and two females. Nine had a personal history of melanoma. The median time since their last skin exam by a healthcare professional was three months (range 0–12 months). Average time for image capture was three minutes (range 2–5). The 55 easy lesions had a mean lesion size of 4.7 mm (1– 22 mm) and included lesions on the extremities (n = 14), trunk (37), neck (2), and face (2). All 55 easy lesions were visualized (sensitivity 100%, 90% CI 95–100%). The 55 difficult lesions had a mean lesion size of 3.9 mm (2–11 mm) and included lesions on the extremities (11), trunk (34), neck (five), and face (five). Fifty-four of 55 difficult lesions were visualized (sensitivity 98%, 90% CI 92–100%). The lesion that was not detected measured 2 mm and was on the participant’s right lateral arm, just distal to the elbow, in a dense hair-bearing area. Operator and participant assessment
No adverse events occurred. Operator and participants graded the imaging process on a five-point scale, with 5
(a)
(b) Figure 3 Imaging sessions scored by operator (a) or by participant (b), on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst. Circles represent mean values, and error bars represent the maximum and minimum values assigned. Rec, recommend.
being best and 1 being worst. The mean operator score for the feasibility and logistics of the system was 4.6. Positioning of the subjects and lighting were the biggest challenges with mean scores of 3.9 and 4, respectively (Fig. 3a). The operator scored the time required favorably (mean 4.9, Fig. 3b). The mean overall participant opinion score was 4.8, with the most favorable scoring given to the time required (mean 5) and the least favorable score given to being fully naked for imaging (mean 4) and the comfort of position 2 (kneeling, 4; Fig. 2b). The participants were given the option to wear undergarments, and nine of 11 participants elected to wear them. The two participants who chose not to wear undergarments each scored their comfort with this as 5. Overall, the participants would recommend this imaging to others strongly, mean score 4.9.
Figure 2 Images acquired with the prototype Dermagram imaging device with original image (left) and then zooming to 39 (center) and then (109), demonstrating image resolution of lesions 1–2 mm in diameter (right) International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
Dengel et al.
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
Report
Discussion
Acknowledgments
In patients with atypical moles, skin photography improves detection of new or changing lesions25,26 and earlier detection of melanoma.27 As seen in our survey and by previous report,21 patients want photographic screening programs. The use of complete skin photography is increasing, and with a CPT code introduced in 2007 (AMA CPT 2007), some reimbursement is available. However, access to complete skin photography is still limited by logistical and financial constraints. A rapid-acquisition system with automated image processing and analysis would improve the cost–benefit ratio and may facilitate penetration of this type of screening tool into population-based screening programs. The present study supports the feasibility of rapid-acquisition automated skin photography, with excellent visualization of small lesions and high participant acceptance. Low-cost population-based screening will be facilitated by the ability to acquire images without skilled staff and in less than five minutes. Despite the encouraging findings, this trial also highlights challenges that need to be addressed before broad adoption of this method. Standard flash photography, with the use of multiple cameras with individual flashes, results in competing flashes and light detection with an imaging booth like this one, where cameras and lights are positioned on opposite sides of the imaging booth. The use of background lighting alone, however, did not provide optimal illumination of the entire body surface, especially in areas such as the axilla or beneath the chin. Future work is needed to optimize a lighting source that is consistent over the body surface and over time. One category the participants scored poorly in was the suggestion of being (almost) nude for imaging sessions. Confounding factors include that the trial was conducted in a research space and was not specifically for clinical decision-making. The participants also found the kneeling position (position 2) uncomfortable. We had designed this position to enable imaging of the axillae, soles of the feet, and inner legs in one position. Future designs may benefit from using easier patient-positioning at the expense of a marginal increase in time required. Despite some challenges with this prototype system, lesion detection was excellent, and 109 of 110 lesions (99%) marked in this pilot study were visualized on the images obtained. Clinical application of this screening tool would be facilitated by systems for easy image viewing and decision support software to guide a clinician’s use of these images. Overall, these data provide a basis for optimizing this method for use in clinical melanoma screening, with plans to add automated lesion detection and longitudinal lesion tracking.
This research was funded by the Thelma R. Swortzel Collaborative Research Award and the Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research. Further funding for research team members was provided by a Cardiovascular Surgery Training grant (no. 2T32 HL007849).
ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
References 1 Slue W, Kopf AW, Rivers JK. Total-body photographs of dysplastic nevi. Arch Dermatol 1988; 124: 1239–1243. 2 Helfand M, Mahon SM, Eden KB, et al. Screening for skin cancer. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20(Suppl. 3): 47–58. 3 Malvehy J, Puig S. Follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital total-body photography and digital dermoscopy: a two-step method. Clin Dermatol 2002; 20: 297–304. 4 Risser J, Pressley Z, Veledar E, et al. The impact of total body photography on biopsy rate in patients from a pigmented lesion clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 57: 428–434. 5 Altman JF, Oliveria SA, Christos PJ, et al. A survey of skin cancer screening in the primary care setting: a comparison with other cancer screenings. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 1022–1027. 6 Suneja T, Smith ED, Chen GJ, et al. Waiting times to see a dermatologist are perceived as too long by dermatologists: implications for the dermatology workforce. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137: 1303–1307. 7 Tsang MW, Resneck JS Jr. Even patients with changing moles face long dermatology appointment wait-times: a study of simulated patient calls to dermatologists. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 55: 54–58. 8 Jacobson CC, Resneck JS Jr, Kimball AB. Generational differences in practice patterns of dermatologists in the united states: implications for workforce planning. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140: 1477–1482. 9 Terushkin V, Oliveria SA, Marghoob AA, et al. Use of and beliefs about total body photography and dermatoscopy among US dermatology training programs: an update. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 62: 794–803. 10 Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, et al. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137: 1343–1350. 11 Rigel DS, Rivers JK, Kopf AW, et al. Dysplastic nevi. markers for increased risk for melanoma. Cancer 1989; 63: 386–389. 12 Shriner DL, Wagner RF Jr. Photographic utilization in dermatology clinics in the united states: a survey of university-based dermatology residency programs. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992; 27: 565–567. 13 MacKie RM, McHenry P, Hole D. Accelerated detection with prospective surveillance for cutaneous malignant
International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
1253
1254
Report
14
15
16
17
18 19
20
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
melanoma in high-risk groups. Lancet 1993; 341: 1618–1620. Kelly JW, Yeatman JM, Regalia C, et al. A high incidence of melanoma found in patients with multiple dysplastic naevi by photographic surveillance. Med J Aust 1997; 167: 191–194. Rhodes AR. Intervention strategy to prevent lethal cutaneous melanoma: use of dermatologic photography to aid surveillance of high-risk persons. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998; 39: 262–267. Hanrahan PF, Hersey P, DEste CA. Factors involved in presentation of older people with thick melanoma. Med J Aust 1998; 169: 410–414. Oliveria SA, Chau D, Christos PJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of patients in performing skin self-examination and the impact of photography. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140: 57–62. Slue WE Jr. Total body photography for melanoma surveillance. N Y State J Med 1992; 92: 494–495. Feit NE, Dusza SW, Marghoob AA. Melanomas detected with the aid of total cutaneous photography. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150: 706–714. Shriner DL, Wagner RF Jr, Glowczwski JR. Photography for the early diagnosis of malignant melanoma in patients with atypical moles. Cutis 1992; 50: 358–362.
International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
Dengel et al.
21 Hanrahan PF, Menzies SW, DEste CA, et al. Participation of older males in a study on photography as an aid to early detection of melanoma. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000; 24: 615–618. 22 Nehal KS, Oliveria SA, Marghoob AA, et al. Use of and beliefs about baseline photography in the management of patients with pigmented lesions: a survey of dermatology residency programmes in the United States. Melanoma Res 2002; 12: 161–167. 23 Phelan DL, Oliveria SA, Halpern AC. Patient experiences with photo books in monthly skin self-examinations. Dermatol Nurs 2005; 17: 109–114. 24 Drugge RJ, Nguyen C, Drugge ED, et al. Melanoma screening with serial whole body photographic change detection using melanoscan technology. Dermatol Online J 2009; 15: 1. 25 Barnes LM, Nordlund JJ. The natural history of dysplastic nevi. A case history illustrating their evolution. Arch Dermatol 1987; 123: 1059–1061. 26 Halpern AC, Guerry D 4th, Elder DE, et al. Natural history of dysplastic nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993; 29: 51–57. 27 Rivers JK, Kopf AW, Vinokur AF, et al. Clinical characteristics of malignant melanomas developing in persons with dysplastic nevi. Cancer 1990; 65: 1232–1236.
ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
Total body photography for skin cancer screening Lynn T. Dengel1, MD, Gina R. Petroni2, PhD, Joshua Judge1, MD, David Chen3, MBA, Scott T. Acton3, PhD, Anneke T. Schroen1, MD, MPH, and Craig L. Slingluff1, Jr, MD
1
Department of Surgery, 2Department of Public Health Sciences, and 3Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Virginia Health Systems, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Abstract Background Total body photography may aid in melanoma screening but is not widely applied due to time and cost. We hypothesized that a near-simultaneous automated skin photo-acquisition system would be acceptable to patients and could rapidly obtain total body images that enable visualization of pigmented skin lesions.
Correspondence Craig L. Slingluff Jr, MD Department of Surgery University of Virginia Health System PO Box 800709 Charlottesville VA 22908 USA E-mail: [email protected] Disclosures: LD, SA, and CS are partners in a limited liability corporation, Dermagram LLC, which was created for the purposes of attaining further funding through STTR grants from the NIH. These grants were not funded and Dermagram LLC currently holds no intellectual property with no outside investors or current revenue streams.
Methods From February to May 2009, a study of 20 volunteers was performed at the University of Virginia to test a prototype 16-camera imaging booth built by the research team and to guide development of special purpose software. For each participant, images were obtained before and after marking 10 lesions (five “easy” and five “difficult”), and images were evaluated to estimate visualization rates. Imaging logistical challenges were scored by the operator, and participant opinion was assessed by questionnaire. Results Average time for image capture was three minutes (range 2–5). All 55 “easy” lesions were visualized (sensitivity 100%, 90% CI 95–100%), and 54/55 “difficult” lesions were visualized (sensitivity 98%, 90% CI 92–100%). Operators and patients graded the imaging process favorably, with challenges identified regarding lighting and positioning. Conclusions Rapid-acquisition automated skin photography is feasible with a low-cost system, with excellent lesion visualization and participant acceptance. These data provide a basis for employing this method in clinical melanoma screening.
Introduction
1250
Early detection of melanoma is critical to maximizing a chance for cure. Most melanomas are visible on the skin; however, many lesions are in skin areas not visible to the patient,1 and the sensitivity and specificity of a skin exam is limited by the expertise and the memory of the practitioner and patient about changes over time,1–4 as well as by patient access to skin exams by their primary care physician or dermatologist. Primary care physicians generally consider digital rectal exam, manual breast exam, and Pap smear as more important uses of their time than skin exams.5 In addition, there is a shortage of dermatologists in the United States,6,7 and further contraction in the effective supply of dermatologists is projected.6,8 The estimated patient wait time for an appointment for a changing mole is more than a month.7 If a convenient, reliable, and affordable technology were available to aid in skin cancer screening, it is likely there would be International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
increased access and stronger recommendations for annual skin cancer screening. Various technologies can aid in skin cancer screening. Digital surface microscopy (dermoscopy) is useful for evaluation of individual skin lesions9 but requires formal training and specialized equipment and is very operatordependent.3,10 Photography as an adjunct to clinician screening exams can improve accuracy and early detection of skin cancer,1,3,11–17 and digital photography is used in some centers to document a baseline skin exam1,4,18,19 or for lesion surveillance with serial imaging.3,12, 20 Physicians and patients are interested in photography as an aid to melanoma screening;21 however, adaptation of this technology as a routine mechanism for population screening is limited by financial and logistical constraints.9 Most centers use a handheld camera and photographer (professional photographer, physician, or nurse) to acquire an average of 24 images (range 4–50).1,9,15,22,23 An automated photography system to streamline and to standardize this screening practice has ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
Dengel et al.
been evaluated in the private practice setting and found to be helpful in diagnosing thin melanoma.24 Patient satisfaction and feasibility of their imaging method were not reported. We developed a novel, near-simultaneous multicamera automated skin photo-acquisition system. We hypothesized that this system could rapidly capture complete skin photographs with patients in just two positions, would be acceptable to patients, and would enable visualization of pigmented skin lesions in a wide range of skin sites. Methods
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
Report
arrays of four cameras each, located in each corner of the square booth. To aid in background segmentation and to minimize specular reflection, the prototype system walls are draped in a blue fabric of relatively consistent color. The cameras are capable of simultaneous capture of 16 highresolution images of patient skin in a single pose; 24-bit color images of size 1704 9 2272 pixels are obtained from each camera. To capture near-complete skin imaging with this device, a complete dataset included images in two positions, one standing (position 1) and one kneeling on a stool (position 2). The cameras are connected via USB extenders into a standard personal computer (PC). The PC is equipped with
Skin cancer screening survey Before initiating the clinical trial, we initiated a study at our melanoma clinic investigating patient’s opinions and adherence to skin cancer screening (IRB HSR#13534). We got in touch with 70 patients from our melanoma clinic that had previously agreed to be contacted for this purpose and had an active email address. The survey gathered information on the patient’s skin cancer history, screening regimen, their opinion about various screening modalities, and time they would be willing to spend for screening. The original survey was distributed electronically in February 2008 with two subsequent email reminders in February and March 2008. The survey was completed anonymously. All responses were received by April 2008.
2 GB of memory and an Intel 2 Core Duo processor. A basic
Prototype development Our team initiated development of a prototype device (Dermagram, University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA, USA), which includes a framed booth measuring 6 ft 9 6 ft 9 6 ft, mounted with 16 digital cameras (Canon Powershot A520 4MP and Canon PowerShot A80 4MP, Melville, NY, USA). As shown schematically in Figure 1, the cameras are fixed in four vertical
Pilot clinical study From February to May 2009, a pilot study of 20 volunteers was performed using this prototype device. The study was designed to allow for optimization of the imaging system during the first cohort of patients. Nine participants were imaged during this development phase, and adjustments to patient positioning and the operating system were made. The final 11 participants were imaged under the definitive design plan for data analysis. Participants were instructed on the correct positioning for the imaging before entering the Dermagram booth. A primary imaging session was completed, imaging patients in positions 1 and 2. After initial imaging, a complete skin exam was performed by a physician, and 10 pigmented skin lesions were visualized, to be evaluated for visualization by the imaging system. These included five lesions in difficult locations (“difficult” lesions), defined as lesions in a skin fold, in hairbearing areas, along hair lines, in the umbilicus, behind the ears, between the fingers or toes, and under the chin. They also included five “easy” lesions, defined as lesions on the arms and legs, trunk, buttocks, and face, and not in areas defined as difficult. Skin markers were placed next to each of these lesions, and a second set of photographs was obtained in the manner above, to document the location of these lesions. The maximum diameter of each lesion was recorded. At the completion of the trial, images from all 11 participants were reviewed by a physician, and marked lesions were scored as
Figure 1 Diagram of prototype imaging system, Dermagram. Here, each green sphere represents a single camera focused on a different portion of patient skin ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
interface to obtain images and automated photo-acquisition have been developed in the C-sharp programming environment. The program currently uses Canon SDK version 7.3, which supports a number of Canon cameras, including the A520 and the A80. To allow for simultaneous shutter release, the program calls a process for each camera and uses TCP sockets to issue commands. Various parameters and modes of the camera can be controlled through the program interface. The program also allows the computer user to preview the subject using the viewfinders of the cameras to aid in calibration if necessary. After the shutter release is activated in the graphics user interface and the cameras take their images, they send them back to the computer where they are stored in a folder.
International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
1251
1252
Report
Dengel et al.
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
visualized or not visualized on the first set of patient images. Imaging logistical challenges were scored by the operator, and participant opinion was assessed by questionnaire.
Results Skin cancer screening survey
The response rate on the patient survey about skin cancer screening was 73% (51 of 70). A history of melanoma was reported by 50 responders (98%). Five responders (10%) had never had a complete skin exam, and only 13 responders (26%) had ever had photographs taken as part of a skin exam. However, 36 responders (70%) wished to have complete skin photography, and 41 responders (80%) were interested in having it performed via an automated photo booth. The majority (36 responders, 70%) of participants was willing to spend any amount of time needed to obtain complete skin photography, and the remaining participants would spend less than two minutes (2%), 10 minutes (4%), 20 minutes (10%), and 30 minutes (8%). Pilot clinical trial lesion detection
Eleven participants were imaged under the definitive design for data analysis: nine males and two females. Nine had a personal history of melanoma. The median time since their last skin exam by a healthcare professional was three months (range 0–12 months). Average time for image capture was three minutes (range 2–5). The 55 easy lesions had a mean lesion size of 4.7 mm (1– 22 mm) and included lesions on the extremities (n = 14), trunk (37), neck (2), and face (2). All 55 easy lesions were visualized (sensitivity 100%, 90% CI 95–100%). The 55 difficult lesions had a mean lesion size of 3.9 mm (2–11 mm) and included lesions on the extremities (11), trunk (34), neck (five), and face (five). Fifty-four of 55 difficult lesions were visualized (sensitivity 98%, 90% CI 92–100%). The lesion that was not detected measured 2 mm and was on the participant’s right lateral arm, just distal to the elbow, in a dense hair-bearing area. Operator and participant assessment
No adverse events occurred. Operator and participants graded the imaging process on a five-point scale, with 5
(a)
(b) Figure 3 Imaging sessions scored by operator (a) or by participant (b), on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst. Circles represent mean values, and error bars represent the maximum and minimum values assigned. Rec, recommend.
being best and 1 being worst. The mean operator score for the feasibility and logistics of the system was 4.6. Positioning of the subjects and lighting were the biggest challenges with mean scores of 3.9 and 4, respectively (Fig. 3a). The operator scored the time required favorably (mean 4.9, Fig. 3b). The mean overall participant opinion score was 4.8, with the most favorable scoring given to the time required (mean 5) and the least favorable score given to being fully naked for imaging (mean 4) and the comfort of position 2 (kneeling, 4; Fig. 2b). The participants were given the option to wear undergarments, and nine of 11 participants elected to wear them. The two participants who chose not to wear undergarments each scored their comfort with this as 5. Overall, the participants would recommend this imaging to others strongly, mean score 4.9.
Figure 2 Images acquired with the prototype Dermagram imaging device with original image (left) and then zooming to 39 (center) and then (109), demonstrating image resolution of lesions 1–2 mm in diameter (right) International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
Dengel et al.
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
Report
Discussion
Acknowledgments
In patients with atypical moles, skin photography improves detection of new or changing lesions25,26 and earlier detection of melanoma.27 As seen in our survey and by previous report,21 patients want photographic screening programs. The use of complete skin photography is increasing, and with a CPT code introduced in 2007 (AMA CPT 2007), some reimbursement is available. However, access to complete skin photography is still limited by logistical and financial constraints. A rapid-acquisition system with automated image processing and analysis would improve the cost–benefit ratio and may facilitate penetration of this type of screening tool into population-based screening programs. The present study supports the feasibility of rapid-acquisition automated skin photography, with excellent visualization of small lesions and high participant acceptance. Low-cost population-based screening will be facilitated by the ability to acquire images without skilled staff and in less than five minutes. Despite the encouraging findings, this trial also highlights challenges that need to be addressed before broad adoption of this method. Standard flash photography, with the use of multiple cameras with individual flashes, results in competing flashes and light detection with an imaging booth like this one, where cameras and lights are positioned on opposite sides of the imaging booth. The use of background lighting alone, however, did not provide optimal illumination of the entire body surface, especially in areas such as the axilla or beneath the chin. Future work is needed to optimize a lighting source that is consistent over the body surface and over time. One category the participants scored poorly in was the suggestion of being (almost) nude for imaging sessions. Confounding factors include that the trial was conducted in a research space and was not specifically for clinical decision-making. The participants also found the kneeling position (position 2) uncomfortable. We had designed this position to enable imaging of the axillae, soles of the feet, and inner legs in one position. Future designs may benefit from using easier patient-positioning at the expense of a marginal increase in time required. Despite some challenges with this prototype system, lesion detection was excellent, and 109 of 110 lesions (99%) marked in this pilot study were visualized on the images obtained. Clinical application of this screening tool would be facilitated by systems for easy image viewing and decision support software to guide a clinician’s use of these images. Overall, these data provide a basis for optimizing this method for use in clinical melanoma screening, with plans to add automated lesion detection and longitudinal lesion tracking.
This research was funded by the Thelma R. Swortzel Collaborative Research Award and the Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research. Further funding for research team members was provided by a Cardiovascular Surgery Training grant (no. 2T32 HL007849).
ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
References 1 Slue W, Kopf AW, Rivers JK. Total-body photographs of dysplastic nevi. Arch Dermatol 1988; 124: 1239–1243. 2 Helfand M, Mahon SM, Eden KB, et al. Screening for skin cancer. Am J Prev Med 2001; 20(Suppl. 3): 47–58. 3 Malvehy J, Puig S. Follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital total-body photography and digital dermoscopy: a two-step method. Clin Dermatol 2002; 20: 297–304. 4 Risser J, Pressley Z, Veledar E, et al. The impact of total body photography on biopsy rate in patients from a pigmented lesion clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007; 57: 428–434. 5 Altman JF, Oliveria SA, Christos PJ, et al. A survey of skin cancer screening in the primary care setting: a comparison with other cancer screenings. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 1022–1027. 6 Suneja T, Smith ED, Chen GJ, et al. Waiting times to see a dermatologist are perceived as too long by dermatologists: implications for the dermatology workforce. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137: 1303–1307. 7 Tsang MW, Resneck JS Jr. Even patients with changing moles face long dermatology appointment wait-times: a study of simulated patient calls to dermatologists. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 55: 54–58. 8 Jacobson CC, Resneck JS Jr, Kimball AB. Generational differences in practice patterns of dermatologists in the united states: implications for workforce planning. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140: 1477–1482. 9 Terushkin V, Oliveria SA, Marghoob AA, et al. Use of and beliefs about total body photography and dermatoscopy among US dermatology training programs: an update. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010; 62: 794–803. 10 Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, et al. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137: 1343–1350. 11 Rigel DS, Rivers JK, Kopf AW, et al. Dysplastic nevi. markers for increased risk for melanoma. Cancer 1989; 63: 386–389. 12 Shriner DL, Wagner RF Jr. Photographic utilization in dermatology clinics in the united states: a survey of university-based dermatology residency programs. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992; 27: 565–567. 13 MacKie RM, McHenry P, Hole D. Accelerated detection with prospective surveillance for cutaneous malignant
International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
1253
1254
Report
14
15
16
17
18 19
20
Total body photography for skin cancer screening
melanoma in high-risk groups. Lancet 1993; 341: 1618–1620. Kelly JW, Yeatman JM, Regalia C, et al. A high incidence of melanoma found in patients with multiple dysplastic naevi by photographic surveillance. Med J Aust 1997; 167: 191–194. Rhodes AR. Intervention strategy to prevent lethal cutaneous melanoma: use of dermatologic photography to aid surveillance of high-risk persons. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998; 39: 262–267. Hanrahan PF, Hersey P, DEste CA. Factors involved in presentation of older people with thick melanoma. Med J Aust 1998; 169: 410–414. Oliveria SA, Chau D, Christos PJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of patients in performing skin self-examination and the impact of photography. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140: 57–62. Slue WE Jr. Total body photography for melanoma surveillance. N Y State J Med 1992; 92: 494–495. Feit NE, Dusza SW, Marghoob AA. Melanomas detected with the aid of total cutaneous photography. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150: 706–714. Shriner DL, Wagner RF Jr, Glowczwski JR. Photography for the early diagnosis of malignant melanoma in patients with atypical moles. Cutis 1992; 50: 358–362.
International Journal of Dermatology 2015, 54, 1250–1254
Dengel et al.
21 Hanrahan PF, Menzies SW, DEste CA, et al. Participation of older males in a study on photography as an aid to early detection of melanoma. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000; 24: 615–618. 22 Nehal KS, Oliveria SA, Marghoob AA, et al. Use of and beliefs about baseline photography in the management of patients with pigmented lesions: a survey of dermatology residency programmes in the United States. Melanoma Res 2002; 12: 161–167. 23 Phelan DL, Oliveria SA, Halpern AC. Patient experiences with photo books in monthly skin self-examinations. Dermatol Nurs 2005; 17: 109–114. 24 Drugge RJ, Nguyen C, Drugge ED, et al. Melanoma screening with serial whole body photographic change detection using melanoscan technology. Dermatol Online J 2009; 15: 1. 25 Barnes LM, Nordlund JJ. The natural history of dysplastic nevi. A case history illustrating their evolution. Arch Dermatol 1987; 123: 1059–1061. 26 Halpern AC, Guerry D 4th, Elder DE, et al. Natural history of dysplastic nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol 1993; 29: 51–57. 27 Rivers JK, Kopf AW, Vinokur AF, et al. Clinical characteristics of malignant melanomas developing in persons with dysplastic nevi. Cancer 1990; 65: 1232–1236.
ª 2014 The International Society of Dermatology
